Tweet
A missed opportunity, Dr Jean Dixon
MARK WIGNALL
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Permanent Secretary in the Energy Ministry Dr Jean Dixon (PhD) missed a most wonderful opportunity to "clear the air" in an interview she did with the Sunday Gleaner. "Don't blame me" - "Permanent Secretary breaks silence on light-bulb saga", screamed the front-page headline of March 16, appropriately embellished with an unsmiling picture of Dr Dixon.
As the columnist who has been the most consistent in questioning Dr Dixon (via Observer articles), it was no surprise to me that she opted to respond to a gossip piece in last Thursday's Gleaner rather than make any attempt to link with the Observer. To be fair to her, it is quite likely that she read into my questionings and saw "hostility" in them rather than a genuine attempt to seek answers which I believed only she could give. By virtue of that she exercised her options and headed for a cooler, softer seat.
I must congratulate the Gleaner on getting some word out of the permanent secretary, but at the same time, after perusing the article, I came away with the distinct impression that the reporter who wrote the piece had not read the reports from the auditor general and the contractor general.
I doubt that those reports were read by anywhere near one per cent of one per cent of the population, so I will not make too much reference to them. Instead, let me deal with the promised but undelivered climax that was the Gleaner article.
".Dixon eschews personal blame for the ill-fated project, pointing out that generally, she had cautioned against political contamination of the affairs of the ministry," said the article after heralding Dr Dixon's coming out as "she has kept her silence. Not anymore".
There we have it from Dr Jean Dixon herself, admitting that she was doing what all professional, career-bound permanent secretaries do - keep the politicians in line. Of course, coming as it did on the front page of one of our leading dailies, we would have expected the reporter to ask,
"Dr Dixon, can you give us an instance, especially where it relates to the light-bulb project, where you issued such a caution?"
Said the article, "'It is difficult,' she reasons, to accept blame when I am attached to the administrative arm of the ministry and not the political directorate. And the ministry's administrative arm was not involved in the conceptualisation of the project; but I do wish that the project was conceptualised differently.'" Again, the reporter could have asked, "How differently, Dr Dixon?"
In such an important matter, carried on the front page of the Gleaner, in not a single section in the meat of the column is a date mentioned. The reporter failed to ask, "Dr Dixon, at what stage or when were you made aware of the project? When you say you understood that the project was to be undertaken by MPs out of their SESP funds, was that before or after Dr Ruth Potopsingh of PCJ wrote you and sought your assistance, .in implementing this expanded project" (May 2006) ? And why, to date, has no one been able to determine why you failed to respond to so crucial a letter?'
Dr Dixon, your silence in that matter reverberates loudly.
Dr Dixon, is it not your understanding that as a "qualified" permanent secretary and top boss in the administrative arm, you are charged mainly with offering advice to the political arm of the ministry, that is, as an accomplished professional, it is your duty to offer all that the thoroughness of scholarship in your PhD implies and assist in guiding project conceptualisation, in addition to effecting your normal administrative functions?
The article goes on, ".Dixon points out that sometimes permanent secretaries are bypassed, and in such circumstances, it would be unfair to lay the blame at the feet of the accounting officer."
Dr Dixon, were you being hypothetical or making a pointed suggestion that you were bypassed in the light-bulb project? Help us, please.
The article continues: "Where there is direct communication between the political directorate of the ministry and officers of the several agencies and departments under its portfolio, to the exclusion of the permanent secretary, whether deliberately or by oversight, it is extremely harsh to blame the permanent secretary for actions taken by the political directorate or the officers as a result of such communication."
Dr Jean Dixon, you need some strong coffee. A lowly clerk or a person screwing in energy-saving light bulbs in an office is excluded from important matters. Not a PhD permanent secretary in such an important ministry whose duty it is to know. In addition, Dr Dixon, were you not also board member of PCJ, the funding agency, and privy to all the minutes of meetings held between that agency and the Energy ministry?
But did Dr Dixon provide us with something to chew on when she spoke about exclusion as, "deliberately or by oversight"? At that juncture we were hoping that Dr Dixon, a well-paid professional, on contract, would have had more to say apart from the pedestrian "don't blame me".
Reggae star Shaggy would be envious.
The Gleaner article ends, as it started, with Dr Dixon's generalisations: '"I am on record as objecting and cautioning against such communication or conduct in relation to the affairs of the ministry."'
Then another, "Dixon replies that she has been efficient in the exercise of her duty as an accounting officer." And I suppose, the sun will come out tomorrow and all rivers flow to the sea.
Having raised too many generalisations and avoided all specifics, the permanent secretary probably believes that the matter will now go away. An opportunity missed like that only opens up the way for more questions. And they will come, either from me, from others, or in a much harsher forum later on, as long as some of us continue to hear the loud "whoosh" of a vacuum, a hole, a gap. Nothing created by Dr Dixon, mind you, only something we believe would normally be plugged by a professional career civil servant in the process of guiding the political arm of a ministry towards and through the straight-and-narrow.
The Gleaner article opens a book, tells us that there are words in it, closes it shut and at its self-determined conclusion, the hope is that we had a good read. Really?
observemark@gmail.com
MARK WIGNALL
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Permanent Secretary in the Energy Ministry Dr Jean Dixon (PhD) missed a most wonderful opportunity to "clear the air" in an interview she did with the Sunday Gleaner. "Don't blame me" - "Permanent Secretary breaks silence on light-bulb saga", screamed the front-page headline of March 16, appropriately embellished with an unsmiling picture of Dr Dixon.
As the columnist who has been the most consistent in questioning Dr Dixon (via Observer articles), it was no surprise to me that she opted to respond to a gossip piece in last Thursday's Gleaner rather than make any attempt to link with the Observer. To be fair to her, it is quite likely that she read into my questionings and saw "hostility" in them rather than a genuine attempt to seek answers which I believed only she could give. By virtue of that she exercised her options and headed for a cooler, softer seat.
I must congratulate the Gleaner on getting some word out of the permanent secretary, but at the same time, after perusing the article, I came away with the distinct impression that the reporter who wrote the piece had not read the reports from the auditor general and the contractor general.
I doubt that those reports were read by anywhere near one per cent of one per cent of the population, so I will not make too much reference to them. Instead, let me deal with the promised but undelivered climax that was the Gleaner article.
".Dixon eschews personal blame for the ill-fated project, pointing out that generally, she had cautioned against political contamination of the affairs of the ministry," said the article after heralding Dr Dixon's coming out as "she has kept her silence. Not anymore".
There we have it from Dr Jean Dixon herself, admitting that she was doing what all professional, career-bound permanent secretaries do - keep the politicians in line. Of course, coming as it did on the front page of one of our leading dailies, we would have expected the reporter to ask,
"Dr Dixon, can you give us an instance, especially where it relates to the light-bulb project, where you issued such a caution?"
Said the article, "'It is difficult,' she reasons, to accept blame when I am attached to the administrative arm of the ministry and not the political directorate. And the ministry's administrative arm was not involved in the conceptualisation of the project; but I do wish that the project was conceptualised differently.'" Again, the reporter could have asked, "How differently, Dr Dixon?"
In such an important matter, carried on the front page of the Gleaner, in not a single section in the meat of the column is a date mentioned. The reporter failed to ask, "Dr Dixon, at what stage or when were you made aware of the project? When you say you understood that the project was to be undertaken by MPs out of their SESP funds, was that before or after Dr Ruth Potopsingh of PCJ wrote you and sought your assistance, .in implementing this expanded project" (May 2006) ? And why, to date, has no one been able to determine why you failed to respond to so crucial a letter?'
Dr Dixon, your silence in that matter reverberates loudly.
Dr Dixon, is it not your understanding that as a "qualified" permanent secretary and top boss in the administrative arm, you are charged mainly with offering advice to the political arm of the ministry, that is, as an accomplished professional, it is your duty to offer all that the thoroughness of scholarship in your PhD implies and assist in guiding project conceptualisation, in addition to effecting your normal administrative functions?
The article goes on, ".Dixon points out that sometimes permanent secretaries are bypassed, and in such circumstances, it would be unfair to lay the blame at the feet of the accounting officer."
Dr Dixon, were you being hypothetical or making a pointed suggestion that you were bypassed in the light-bulb project? Help us, please.
The article continues: "Where there is direct communication between the political directorate of the ministry and officers of the several agencies and departments under its portfolio, to the exclusion of the permanent secretary, whether deliberately or by oversight, it is extremely harsh to blame the permanent secretary for actions taken by the political directorate or the officers as a result of such communication."
Dr Jean Dixon, you need some strong coffee. A lowly clerk or a person screwing in energy-saving light bulbs in an office is excluded from important matters. Not a PhD permanent secretary in such an important ministry whose duty it is to know. In addition, Dr Dixon, were you not also board member of PCJ, the funding agency, and privy to all the minutes of meetings held between that agency and the Energy ministry?
But did Dr Dixon provide us with something to chew on when she spoke about exclusion as, "deliberately or by oversight"? At that juncture we were hoping that Dr Dixon, a well-paid professional, on contract, would have had more to say apart from the pedestrian "don't blame me".
Reggae star Shaggy would be envious.
The Gleaner article ends, as it started, with Dr Dixon's generalisations: '"I am on record as objecting and cautioning against such communication or conduct in relation to the affairs of the ministry."'
Then another, "Dixon replies that she has been efficient in the exercise of her duty as an accounting officer." And I suppose, the sun will come out tomorrow and all rivers flow to the sea.
Having raised too many generalisations and avoided all specifics, the permanent secretary probably believes that the matter will now go away. An opportunity missed like that only opens up the way for more questions. And they will come, either from me, from others, or in a much harsher forum later on, as long as some of us continue to hear the loud "whoosh" of a vacuum, a hole, a gap. Nothing created by Dr Dixon, mind you, only something we believe would normally be plugged by a professional career civil servant in the process of guiding the political arm of a ministry towards and through the straight-and-narrow.
The Gleaner article opens a book, tells us that there are words in it, closes it shut and at its self-determined conclusion, the hope is that we had a good read. Really?
observemark@gmail.com
Comment